Apple Acquires Streaming Music Service Lala Media

[Goona]

TV

They can still save the TV but right now I wouldn't buy one and I believe there are better alternatives.

Lala would certainly be coming to the TV, but even that's not enough to save it.

How has Apple TV failed, as for some of you.

 

[alphaod]

I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple offers the Lala service for free to iPhone and iPod touch customers. That would be really cool and similar to what Nokia tried to do with their streaming music service in 2007.

Why would they do that? They don't need to since iTunes already has a substantial market; at best they don't rip us off.

How has Apple TV failed, as for some of you.

Depends on where you are geographically; for example in China almost no one buys it; and not because it's very expensive… mainly because the Internet is very slow making such a device useless.

And here in the US, I don't know anyone who owns one. I certainly don't and none of my neighbors do.

 

[Goona]

iPod Hi-Fi, and before you say it doesn't count because it was an accessory, it was a main focal point at an media event where the only other thing was the mini getting Intel processors, so it was pretty big, at least in Apple's point of view, it didn't fail because of it's quality though, most Apple products aren't flawed in that regard, it was it's price, and Apple's refusal to drop it.

I'm only pointing this out to prove that Apple's not a company with a halo over it's head (nor is Google or Microsoft or any other company), their goal, is to make money, that's the point of a business. I think though not just on MacRumors but the tech community as a whole, we need to stop bashing something just because [fill in the blank] makes it, or it's not made by [fill in the blank]. Companies make good products that some like and others don't, and even the companies that make a lot of good ones, sometimes make a blunder here and there. So maybe instead of getting condescending when someone uses another products than we do, we should consider the pluses it may have.

As Steve himself put it "We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose." You could easily fill Microsoft or Apple with any other company.

/Rant

Well said. It's funny how so many people give a damn what people use, it's my money, why should it matter to you.

 

[phaedarus]

I can't blame Apple for following the money. If functioning as a media conglomerate via proxy by becoming a service portal is where the company sees its future, then so be it.

I just wish that us professional graphic designers and video editors (who, by the way, kept the company afloat for 20+ years) didn't have to be casualties as a result of this transition.

 

[m828s]

Here's the Bottom Line:

Regardless of where my media is -- my computer, iPhone, or CLOUD -- I need to OWN the media and be able to do whatever I want with it.

I will never put the fate of my purchases or creations in the hands of a business entity. Because if they go under, I may lose my investment.

I'm not sure what LALA brings to the table other than talent and infrastructure, as someone else pointed out.

Based on LALA's current business model -- I'm assuming that "purchasing" the more expensive version of the song isn't DRM-free -- then I would never give them one red cent, because should they go under, I lose my music.

Not that it matters ... keep reading.

When I bought vinyl or cassette or CD or other media, there was no possibility of losing the media except by my own carelessness -- or by my own CHOICE (i.e., throw it in the garbage or scratch a CD).

Sure, one can argue that music IS DRM-free -- and it is, finally, DRM-free.

But I'll never be able to depend on the cloud (based on my current understanding of the technology)....

BECAUSE SOME OTHER COMPANY OWNS THE CLOUD -- NOT ME

If it rains (haha) and the cloud goes away, I've lost the media/productivity that I chose to SAVE in the cloud.

So, unless I already OWN all of the media I put in the cloud PHYSICALLY, then it's REALLY JUST ANOTHER FORM OF DRM.

I think people are conflating the notion of the cloud with the notion that the cloud will protect them in some way from losing their media -- e.g., "I can access my music anywhere if it's in the cloud, so why do I need to own it anymore?"

Well, you still need to have your own physical copy -- even if it's DRM-free -- that you can do whatever you want with, or you're essentially right back to square one -- your media will be in the hands of a business entity that could go under and POOF your media is gone.

 

[Tobsterius]

The Newton's only failure was being ahead of it's time.

And its terrible handwriting recognition in the early models.

 

[*LTD*]

Here's the Bottom Line:

Regardless of where my media is -- my computer, iPhone, or CLOUD -- I need to OWN the media and be able to do whatever I want with it.

I will never put the fate of my purchases or creations in the hands of a business entity. Because if they go under, I may lose my investment.

I'm not sure what LALA brings to the table other than talent and infrastructure, as someone else pointed out.

Based on LALA's current business model -- I'm assuming that "purchasing" the more expensive version of the song isn't DRM-free -- then I would never give them one red cent, because should they go under, I lose my music.

Not that it matters ... keep reading.

When I bought vinyl or cassette or CD or other media, there was no possibility of losing the media except by my own carelessness -- or by my own CHOICE (i.e., throw it in the garbage or scratch a CD).

Sure, one can argue that music IS DRM-free -- and it is, finally, DRM-free.

But I'll never be able to depend on the cloud (based on my current understanding of the technology)....

BECAUSE SOME OTHER COMPANY OWNS THE CLOUD -- NOT ME

If it rains (haha) and the cloud goes away, I've lost the media/productivity that I chose to SAVE in the cloud.

So, unless I already OWN all of the media I put in the cloud PHYSICALLY, then it's REALLY JUST ANOTHER FORM OF DRM.

I think people are conflating the notion of the cloud with the notion that the cloud will protect them in some way from losing their media -- e.g., "I can access my music anywhere if it's in the cloud, so why do I need to own it anymore?"

Well, you still need to have your own physical copy -- even if it's DRM-free -- that you can do whatever you want with, or you're essentially right back to square one -- your media will be in the hands of a business entity that could go under and POOF your media is gone.

Let's not overreact or jump to conclusions. Why wouldn't you own what you bought?

And as for the Cloud, I use MobileMe and iDisk. I work off iDisk, so everything of mine is on the Cloud. But it also saves me a local copy automatically. No problems.

 

[Tobsterius]

Why type that without at least trying to verify it?

It's MOMA, which has a lot of interesting looking stuff that utterly failed in the market.




Not really, the cube died, and a few years later the mini appeared.

Other than being headless, the Mini and the Cube have few similarities. (CPU, disk, graphics, memory...)

The Mini is a screeenless MacBook without a battery - reformed into a square.

The Cube has one thing in common with the latest Imacs, though, they also suffered from embarrassing cracks...

I never considered the Mini to be a direct descendent of the cube. But it's certainly an indirect descendent. I think you can also argue that the lamp iMac design was also a descendent from the technology Apple engineered in order to make the cube.

 

[PaperMacWriter]

Here's the Bottom Line:

Regardless of where my media is -- my computer, iPhone, or CLOUD -- I need to OWN the media and be able to do whatever I want with it.

I will never put the fate of my purchases or creations in the hands of a business entity. Because if they go under, I may lose my investment.

I'm not sure what LALA brings to the table other than talent and infrastructure, as someone else pointed out.

Based on LALA's current business model -- I'm assuming that "purchasing" the more expensive version of the song isn't DRM-free -- then I would never give them one red cent, because should they go under, I lose my music.

Not that it matters ... keep reading.

When I bought vinyl or cassette or CD or other media, there was no possibility of losing the media except by my own carelessness -- or by my own CHOICE (i.e., throw it in the garbage or scratch a CD).

Sure, one can argue that music IS DRM-free -- and it is, finally, DRM-free.

But I'll never be able to depend on the cloud (based on my current understanding of the technology)....

BECAUSE SOME OTHER COMPANY OWNS THE CLOUD -- NOT ME

If it rains (haha) and the cloud goes away, I've lost the media/productivity that I chose to SAVE in the cloud.

So, unless I already OWN all of the media I put in the cloud PHYSICALLY, then it's REALLY JUST ANOTHER FORM OF DRM.

I think people are conflating the notion of the cloud with the notion that the cloud will protect them in some way from losing their media -- e.g., "I can access my music anywhere if it's in the cloud, so why do I need to own it anymore?"

Well, you still need to have your own physical copy -- even if it's DRM-free -- that you can do whatever you want with, or you're essentially right back to square one -- your media will be in the hands of a business entity that could go under and POOF your media is gone.

So you just want apple to let you have iTunes purchases be on your hard-drive AND in the cloud? Or do you not want the cloud at all?

I think apple is going to use it to boost up iTunes, by adding streams from the cloud at either no more than a normal song or a very minimal price(5-10¢), along with a download to your HD. Then, apple could use this to improve Home Sharing, so that you can move ALL of your purchases across your computers and iPods, and iPhones - maybe even add some sort of "remote sync" for your iPhone over wifi.

I also think that this would all be a part of MobileMe, so that if your a member and link MM to your iTunes account, you could manage which computers and phones it would work with, guidelines, etc. I personally have no idea what this all will look like or how itll work, but I'm hoping we get this.

And full song previews

SG

 

[*LTD*]

There are some serious misconceptions about Cloud Computing going on here.

Apple's current solution, for instance - iDisk (as part of MobileMe), aside from some occasional syncing issues (mostly when your bandwidth is being eaten up by something else) is very good. I don't even need to think about it, I just use it.

So what's the problem?

 

[m828s]

Let's not overreact or jump to conclusions. Why wouldn't you own what you bought?

And as for the Cloud, I use MobileMe and iDisk. I work off iDisk, so everything of mine is on the Cloud. But it also saves me a local copy automatically. No problems.

Remember, we're not just talking music -- we're talking about all media -- and we're not just talking about all media -- we're talking about whatever you or I choose to save in the Cloud.

Why wouldn't I own what I bought? It happens all the time -- less so with music, finally -- but read up on the Kindle/George Orwell fiasco -- and the big surprise it was for the consumer -- to find out that they didn't own it -- indeed, don't own a single thing they purchase for their Kindle.

Really, only music has been sorted out in favor of the consumer -- and that took years and years.

The issue here is DRM'd media that you buy that is so restrictive it can only be used on one platform (or be saved to your computer). If I can only watch movies I purchase from iTunes using iTunes, if it goes under, I lose my content -- because my only media to watch it on-the-go has gone bye bye.

Even if I OWN DRM-free everything, I'm still at risk of losing it on the cloud -- unless I back it all up myself on my own hardware -- because the company owning that particular cumulus could go under any time.

There are inherent problems with subscription-based formats -- streaming music or other media is fine and dandy -- just don't expect it to be there forever. Just because it comes from the cloud, and has big advantages because of that central server in the sky, doesn't mean you won't have it forever -- even if the subscription company says you can "buy" the music and stop streaming it -- unless it's DRM-free and you store it on your own hardware. DRM-free and stored in the cloud (and only the cloud) is just an epic fail waiting to happen.

As far as your ability to back it up yourself, assuming it's DRM-free content, you're great -- as long as you're backing your land-based storage as well (even if it is to back up in the cloud). Unfortunately, I think people are not understanding this.

People are focused on what will happen to their music if LALA were to go away, but what people really to need to ask themselves is -- what happens if my cloud goes away?

The cloud must be looked at as nothing more than a giant external hard drive. It certainly doesn't give anyone any advantages in terms of what they own or don't own. It just lets you access stuff from anywhere, given you've got the hardware to do so.

If it's in the cloud, and it's only in the cloud, and the cloud blows away, you're out of luck.

The Government will need to step in and insure cloud content like they do banks, or people are going to start buying insurance for their cloud content -- I'm sure someone's already working on it.

 

[m828s]

So you just want apple to let you have iTunes purchases be on your hard-drive AND in the cloud? Or do you not want the cloud at all?

SG

The cloud is fine and dandy, but the consumer must begin to realize that it's no second coming. There is currently no guarantee that cloud content won't be lost to the ether -- and I'm not going to entrust my DVD collection or 11000+ music library to that and only that.

Access everywhere doesn't mean access forever.

 

[m828s]

There are some serious misconceptions about Cloud Computing going on here.

Apple's current solution, for instance - iDisk (as part of MobileMe), aside from some occasional syncing issues (mostly when your bandwidth is being eaten up by something else) is very good. I don't even need to think about it, I just use it.

So what's the problem?

Well, iDisk is an Apple product that allows for remote centralization of content, right? I hope you're backing up your iDisk content on your own hardware -- otherwise, you may lose that content if Apple goes away.

I wonder who really owns the content? I have no idea. I wonder what the lawyers/contracts say.

If people don't back up what they store remotely, then everything is essentially Digital Rights Managed -- because someone else has absolute control. Doesn't matter if its music, book, the award-winning website you designed, or the spreadsheet you spent hours on so that it's working perfectly.

 

[*LTD*]

As far as your ability to back it up yourself, assuming it's DRM-free content, you're great -- as long as you're backing your land-based storage as well (even if it is to back up in the cloud). Unfortunately, I think people are not understanding this.

This is key. All my idisk content points directly to my Documents folder (I created a new one with a slightly different name) on my MBP's hard drive, which is backed up by Time Machine on an external drive.

Land-based backups/redundancy is important. And I agree with you, I don't think enough people realize this.

 

[Eric S.]

I agree that I would not trust the only copy of my music to the cloud. But the question for me is a more fundamental one: what is the attraction of having your music in the cloud in the first place? Is it so that it's available anywhere? I already have that with my iPod(s). Is there somewhere I can access the cloud that I can't take an iPod? And to listen to cloud music, don't I need wifi access, or access to some other data network (that I would have to pay another fee for)?

 

[DisturbedLen]

I never thought I'd rent music either until the $5 per month Napster plan, which includes 5 Monthly MP3 downloads. How can anyone argue with that???

I do like Lala, especially for those who do not want to spend $5 per month. But if you spend money on Music, the Napster $5 plan is amazing.

I never spend more than the $5 per month on Napster.

 

[joeshell383]

Remember, we're not just talking music -- we're talking about all media -- and we're not just talking about all media -- we're talking about whatever you or I choose to save in the Cloud.

Why wouldn't I own what I bought? It happens all the time -- less so with music, finally -- but read up on the Kindle/George Orwell fiasco -- and the big surprise it was for the consumer -- to find out that they didn't own it -- indeed, don't own a single thing they purchase for their Kindle.

Really, only music has been sorted out in favor of the consumer -- and that took years and years.

The issue here is DRM'd media that you buy that is so restrictive it can only be used on one platform (or be saved to your computer). If I can only watch movies I purchase from iTunes using iTunes, if it goes under, I lose my content -- because my only media to watch it on-the-go has gone bye bye.

Even if I OWN DRM-free everything, I'm still at risk of losing it on the cloud -- unless I back it all up myself on my own hardware -- because the company owning that particular cumulus could go under any time.

There are inherent problems with subscription-based formats -- streaming music or other media is fine and dandy -- just don't expect it to be there forever. Just because it comes from the cloud, and has big advantages because of that central server in the sky, doesn't mean you won't have it forever -- even if the subscription company says you can "buy" the music and stop streaming it -- unless it's DRM-free and you store it on your own hardware. DRM-free and stored in the cloud (and only the cloud) is just an epic fail waiting to happen.

As far as your ability to back it up yourself, assuming it's DRM-free content, you're great -- as long as you're backing your land-based storage as well (even if it is to back up in the cloud). Unfortunately, I think people are not understanding this.

People are focused on what will happen to their music if LALA were to go away, but what people really to need to ask themselves is -- what happens if my cloud goes away?

The cloud must be looked at as nothing more than a giant external hard drive. It certainly doesn't give anyone any advantages in terms of what they own or don't own. It just lets you access stuff from anywhere, given you've got the hardware to do so.

If it's in the cloud, and it's only in the cloud, and the cloud blows away, you're out of luck.

The Government will need to step in and insure cloud content like they do banks, or people are going to start buying insurance for their cloud content -- I'm sure someone's already working on it.

Ownership is not the appropriate term. Irrevocable or permanent license would be a more appropriate way to describe the concept of having a physical or local copy of multimedia. Ownership would imply that you are the copyright holder of the content and possess licensing and distribution rights.

 

[m828s]

Ownership is not the appropriate term. Irrevocable or permanent license would be a more appropriate way to describe the concept of having a physical or local copy of multimedia. Ownership would imply that you have the you are the copyright holder of the content and possess the licensing and distribution rights.

Very true.

My thinking was -- don't make the issue more confusing than it needs to be.

 

[m828s]

I agree that I would not trust the only copy of my music to the cloud. But the question for me is a more fundamental one: what is the attraction of having your music in the cloud in the first place? Is it so that it's available anywhere? I already have that with my iPod(s). Is there somewhere I can access the cloud that I can't take an iPod? And to listen to cloud music, don't I need wifi access, or access to some other data network (that I would have to pay another fee for)?

It's easy to speculate how the cloud will evolve, but I have no idea what it will really turn into -- but my thinking is that it's primary functions will be to back up files that I also back up at home -- so that I can access stuff anywhere and not be compromised by potential lack of mobile hard/flash drive capacity -- and a place for businesses to offer products -- why should I use my own precious hard drive space with Word/PowerPoint/Pages etc., when I can use it instead to hold my couple hundred movies?

The key here is that business will build or buy or manage their own piece of the cloud -- if they lose their content because of a hardware issue, presumable they'll be able to restore it -- unless of course they go out of business -- but then again, that's okay, because their software program isn't something I own or necessarily want to own. It just becomes a situation where I move on to another program or program suite that can still do the job for me. My content is still safe and secure at home.

 

[Eric S.]

It's easy to speculate how the cloud will evolve, but I have no idea what it will really turn into -- but my thinking is that it's primary functions will be to back up files that I also back up at home -- so that I can access stuff anywhere and not be compromised by potential lack of mobile hard/flash drive capacity -- and a place for businesses to offer products -- why should I use my own precious hard drive space with Word/PowerPoint/Pages etc., when I can use it instead to hold my couple hundred movies?

The key here is that business will build or buy or manage their own piece of the cloud -- if they lose their content because of a hardware issue, presumable they'll be able to restore it -- unless of course they go out of business -- but then again, that's okay, because their software program isn't something I own or necessarily want to own. It just becomes a situation where I move on to another program or program suite that can still do the job for me. My content is still safe and secure at home.

I'll re-phrase the question. What advantage do I get from having my music in the cloud instead of on my iPod in my pocket?

 

[lilo777]

You'll be fine

I can't blame Apple for following the money. If functioning as a media conglomerate via proxy by becoming a service portal is where the company sees its future, then so be it.

I just wish that us professional graphic designers and video editors (who, by the way, kept the company afloat for 20+ years) didn't have to be casualties as a result of this transition.

You should not worry. There is always Windows which is a better platform anyways.

 

[m828s]

I'll re-phrase the question. What advantage do I get from having my music in the cloud instead of on my iPod in my pocket?

LOL. Not much? Unless your library is larger than what the iPod can currently hold.

Although, you could conceivably stop carrying your iPod if you carry a laptop or iPhone. So one less item maybe?

I honestly can't think of much advantage -- but there are people out there more tech savvy than I am -- I'm someone who just recently went wireless at home.

For the consumer in general, I don't see the cloud as much of anything. For businesses, it's a completely different story. My understanding is that Google is pioneering forward on this front.

I really like the idea of their Chrome OS -- but meaningful integration with current software offerings has to be years away. How soon are we going to see full-featured Word or Pages in the cloud? Not that soon I don't think, if it means integration with a different OS (read: never).

Steve and Steve will come up with their own versions of a cloud-based OS/software suite before that ever happens.

 

[html]

The time gap between Cube and the Mini negates any sort 'evolution'

Really? Then would you say that the Newton and iPhone aren't evolutionarily related? There's too much similarity between the methods used to pack everything in to the cube and mini to deny relation, especially when one considers the heatsink-cooling model of the cube. In terms of industrial design, the mini is an obvious derivative of the cube.

 

[Eric S.]

Ownership is not the appropriate term. Irrevocable or permanent license would be a more appropriate way to describe the concept of having a physical or local copy of multimedia. Ownership would imply that you are the copyright holder of the content and possess licensing and distribution rights.

"Owning" is pretty much understood by most people as meaning possessing an individual copy. Including by Steve Jobs, who said in a 2007 interview:

"People want to own their music."

 

[fifthworld]

Ownership is not the appropriate term. Irrevocable or permanent license would be a more appropriate way to describe the concept of having a physical or local copy of multimedia. Ownership would imply that you are the copyright holder of the content and possess licensing and distribution rights.

"Owning" is pretty much understood by most people as meaning possessing an individual copy. Including by Steve Jobs, who said in a 2007 interview:

"People want to own their music."

I don't want to "own"music anymore, nor I'm anymore interested in owning a copy in CDs or in any other media or device. I'm looking forward to the day when I will just pay-per-listen the music of my choice.